Power Level Reform

[Darth Woodrack]

Okay. I guess I'm good with that. I do want to re-address the problem of not letting people have characters becuase their investiture would be rare, but is treated as common. I think that they should be notified that their are already several people with this power, but it shouldn't be blocked, becuase of that. Again, if I had Walker, and I was told that there were already 3 steel compounders, Walker would probably be a windrunner, and have an avian, but wouldn't be a steel compounder, or I might have kept him, or I might have been driven off. I probably would have been driven off. So, they must have plausible reasons why they have their powers, but they must also be allowed ot have the characters they want.

[Gancho Libre]

Ok, that makes sense.

But.. you know what else does?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ookla the Libre

[+Sorana]

Altight, thanks!

[+Ark1002]

I really like the idea of the DA having a territory that is lawless, then everyone else having there own.

[MacThorstenson]

1 hour ago, Ark1002 said:

I really like the idea of the DA having a territory that is lawless, then everyone else having there own.

I heavily object to the DA having a lawless area. The DA is always governed by laws. The laws of SCIENCE!

[Darth Woodrack]

Again, I would like an exposition treaty. Just for someone who has committed a high crime.

[MacThorstenson]

2 minutes ago, Darth Woodrack said:

Again, I would like an exposition treaty. Just for someone who has committed a high crime.

Obviously I can't speak for the rest DA in this, but I would prefer to negotiate an exposition treaty in Character, once the government is formed. 

 

[Voidus]

Again I'm assuming you mean an extradition treaty?

Or are people so sick of DA exposition that we need a treaty to stop us worldbuilding any further?

Yeah that'll need to be an in character thing. And more likely a case by case situation.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So, everyone, you know how the Alleycity is divided by what guild holds those parts of land? Or maybe it isn’t, but still, I think that having different laws among the guilds is impossible, especially in such a small area. As a wise person once told me, “If weed was legal in Wisconsin, then I could drive over there, buy some, then drive back into Minnesota with legally obtained weed (paraphrased) (for the record, this was a hypothetical conversation).” This can’t possibly work, since differing laws among states in the US, which is way, way bigger than the Alleycity, are hard to enforce, so enforcing differing laws among a single city would be nay impossible. 

So, I come to the conclusion that the Great Guilds have to decide a set of laws that works for everyone, and can be enforced by everyone. 

I think it’s safe to use the US Constitution (Amendments included) as a starting point. Actually, I haven’t seen all the Amendments, so maybe not. 

[Ataraxian Wist]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Meme-Thief said:

So, everyone, you know how the Alleycity is divided by what guild holds those parts of land? Or maybe it isn’t, but still, I think that having different laws among the guilds is impossible, especially in such a small area. As a wise person once told me, “If weed was legal in Wisconsin, then I could drive over there, buy some, then drive back into Minnesota with legally obtained weed (paraphrased) (for the record, this was a hypothetical conversation).” This can’t possibly work, since differing laws among states in the US, which is way, way bigger than the Alleycity, are hard to enforce, so enforcing differing laws among a single city would be nay impossible. 

So, I come to the conclusion that the Great Guilds have to decide a set of laws that works for everyone, and can be enforced by everyone. 

I think it’s safe to use the US Constitution (Amendments included) as a starting point. Actually, I haven’t seen all the Amendments, so maybe not.

 I think we've already solved that problem here, actually. Read through the rest of the next page, too, for more info.

[Darth Woodrack]

17 hours ago, Voidus said:

Again I'm assuming you mean an extradition treaty?

I did. I have always just assumed that it was exposition, not extradition.

Negotiating in character is a good idea.

[MacThorstenson]

Should we try to set up a poll to vote on a few specific proposals? It feels like discussion has wrapped up and once vacation starts we won’t be able to get as many replies. 

[kenod]

Should one of the mods put up the poll, or should I do that? Also, which options should be in the poll?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I feel like we’ve wrapped up the discussion as far as we can without a poll.

Potential option:

Points system- yes or no.

[Archer]

I think the three questions should be something along the lines of:

1. Should we adopt Kenod's laws? (will need to link these in OP)

2. There was one or two laws that were contentious. Should ask about them specifically (whichever ones got a lot of debate. Or just modify the laws to accommodate). 

3. Should we adopt the points system? (If it's a yes, we'll get the guys who run the character list to flush it out and start using it for E3)

I don't have time to do it now, but I can put up a poll later today if everyone's cool with that.  

[Ataraxian Wist]

Sounds good to me.

[MacThorstenson]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Paragon said:

I think the three questions should be something along the lines of:

1. Should we adopt Kenod's laws? (will need to link these in OP)

2. There was one or two laws that were contentious. Should ask about them specifically (whichever ones got a lot of debate. Or just modify the laws to accommodate). 

3. Should we adopt the points system? (If it's a yes, we'll get the guys who run the character list to flush it out and start using it for E3)

I don't have time to do it now, but I can put up a poll later today if everyone's cool with that.  

Let’s make sure that we specify if the point system is used for character creation as opposed to character analysis.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ookla the [REDACTED]

[kenod]

1 hour ago, Ookla the Paragon said:

I think the three questions should be something along the lines of:

1. Should we adopt Kenod's laws? (will need to link these in OP)

2. There was one or two laws that were contentious. Should ask about them specifically (whichever ones got a lot of debate. Or just modify the laws to accommodate). 

3. Should we adopt the points system? (If it's a yes, we'll get the guys who run the character list to flush it out and start using it for E3)

I don't have time to do it now, but I can put up a poll later today if everyone's cool with that.  

For the proposals I created I want to note a couple of things first, based on the feedback.

1. If we're going with the points system, even for analysis, the power plausibility rule should be scrapped. This one was mainly intended as a balancing system, and the points system would fulfill this role better, in a way that is better for dealing with unusual but interesting combinations.
2. The main issue I found people had with them was the amount of restrictions that they placed, especially the power increase rule. I'd say that this one would have to be given more detail before being implemented, creating better limits for what would be allowed without community consent and what wouldn't be.
3. I think that when putting the rules in there, we should have 3 options: Agree, needs adjustment and disagree.

For the points system question I agree with what Mac has said, and that we'll need an option both for using it as an analysis tool and as an actual character creation system.

[+Ark1002]

I think one of the options for the Kenod laws thing should be some.

[Darth Woodrack]

Yeah. The points system should be an analysis tool, if we use it.

[Archer]

I just realized that I totally dibsed the creation of this poll, when Kenod could have done it. Sorry Kenod, I forgot you could do it too as the maker of the OP. You should have told me to stand down!

Anyways, I’m trying something new here. I’ve made the first question's options multiple choice, so for each option, people can vote for multiple answers. The result is it looks like four times as many people voted. But this way we can ask about all the laws and not exceed our three question limit. When reading the data for those ones, treat them like they’re separate questions. Then compare the total number of ‘yeses’ to the total number of voters to see if they got a majority.

I'm fairly confident those ones will get through. If they don't, then we can rework them or make a more specific question to see why. I made the Power Increase one separate so that we can get the agree/somewhat agree/disagree options, since we know it's contentious. At Kenod's recommendation, I did not include the first law about reasonableness. 

As always, tell me (or kenod) if there's any problems with the poll (including badly worded questions or poor choice or possible answers).

Here's the link to the laws:

 

[+Ark1002]

Wow. This pole is really tight xD

[Voidus]

Intentional?

[kenod]

10 minutes ago, Ookla the Paragon said:

I just realized that I totally dibsed the creation of this poll, when Kenod could have done it. Sorry Kenod, I forgot you could do it too as the maker of the OP. You should have told me to stand down!

Anyways, I’m trying something new here. I’ve made the first question's options multiple choice, so for each option, people can vote for multiple answers. The result is it looks like four times as many people voted. But this way we can ask about all the laws and not exceed our three question limit. When reading the data for those ones, treat them like they’re separate questions. Then compare the total number of ‘yeses’ to the total number of voters to see if they got a majority.

I'm fairly confident those ones will get through. If they don't, then we can rework them or make a more specific question to see why. I made the Power Increase one separate so that we can get the agree/somewhat agree/disagree options, since we know it's contentious. At Kenod's recommendation, I did not include the first law about reasonableness. 

As always, tell me (or kenod) if there's any problems with the poll (including badly worded questions or poor choice or possible answers).

Here's the link to the laws:

 

Everything seems alright. I also prefer that you did it, mainly because I didn't know the multiple choice option.

[Darth Woodrack]

I strongly agree with the law of proportional weakness for 2 reasons.

1. I had been saying, pretty much the same thing, since the beginning of this thread.
2. I allows more powerful characters, but makes it that they are beatable.